Somebody should make a page offering well-sourced and comprehensive coverage of the ongoing rape of the African continent, as well as the money trails leading from African dictators and warlords to banks and corporate robber barons. Something like this...

But more in-depth, and with more sources and notes. Most citizens of the U.S. don't seem to know about this, and stereotypes about African poverty are frequently used by Alt Reich trolls to advance the claim that black people are "inferior" to insecure white idiots.Phantom666 (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Phantom666

The international convention on asylum and refugees lays out the types of legal infractions that allow for rejection of refugee asylum:

“”(a) he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes; (b) he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee; (c) he has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

—Article 1(F) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees

Hell, Article 31 of the 1951 Convention, States parties provide in their domestic law that an applicant’s irregular entry (i.e., without an entry visa or other documentation) will not have a negative effect on the asylum seeker’s application. Fuck everyone who defends this on "legal" grounds. They're just racist scum. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 16:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, yes, you ignore law, morality, human decency, context, but you have a stupid slogan you can mindlessly repeat. You're a vile, racist shit who contributes nothing. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 16:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I just want to reinforce that if you think rejecting refugees because of improper crossing is "legal" you're just racist. That's all you are. There's nothing else to it. It's not polarization and politics, it's you being a bad human being. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 16:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Look, honestly, leaving refugees to die at the border is obviously inhumane, and you're right to condemn it as such. (Possibly not the most accurate description of what's happening right now or in the future, but views may differ.) But it's kind of odd how you automatically jump to the assumption of racism. Sort of like how a Trumpist might interpret you thinking "letting refugees in at the border isn't a threat to national security" as you automatically being an anti-American commie traitor. See how this way of painting others destroys all semblance of nuance, and all possibility of compromise? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I was fairly explicit that anyone who defended it specifically on grounds of legality are the scum. You want to blame me for being polarized, but let's be fair, the right has beengleefully willing to ignore law, morality, and demonstrable fact in order to "win". Constantly. For years now. They're scum, and I'm "polarized" because I cannot live with those scum being scum anymore; something's gotta give. Also, it's not a matter of national security. They don't care about that either. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 17:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

National security might be an afterthought for most politicians, but it's a major motivating principle for Trump supporters (to paranoid heights I might add). "Protecting America" pretty much defines their whole morality when it comes to national and international politics. They're kinda like communists in that way (or any other group of collectivist extremists), in that protecting "the ideal of the perfect state" is more important than any casualties that happen along the way. That they're willing to bend/ignore laws that get in the way of their ideals shouldn't come as a surprise. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)